Tiger vs. Jack?

Question:

That’s even funnier. I evaluate athletic accomplishment by accomplishment. But I guess you can say that accomplishment is observed. Fine by me; I has been observed that Nicklaus had a broader rangte of athletic accomplishment than Woods. Rob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are the master of relevant rebuttals! Must I remind you that athletic ability is evaluated by means of OBSERVATION. Wake up already. That’s funny. Someone is better athletically because of the way they look! Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

– GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

Of course the point I make is that there is no legitimate basis to claim that Woods is a better athlete than Nicklaus.

Well that’s simply nonsense. One look at Tiger in person will reveal that he’s solid as a rock, where as Jack was golf’s "Pillsbury Dough Boy" when he first burst on TOUR, prompting many to call him "Fat Jack." Even in his prime, he was merely fit, never "strong." Randy

Response:

Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability. Nicklaus was a good athlete in football and I do beleive baseball at the very least. You want to equate body form to athletic ability, so I guess Warren Sapp is a lousy athlete compared to Tiger Woods? Sounds like the WWE definition of athleticism to me. LOL! Trust me, Rob… I’ve seen Tiger up close. You wouldn’t want to tangle with him, either on or off the course.

Wouldn’t want to tangle with Brock Lesnar either! Of course the point I make is that there is no legitimate basis to claim that Woods is a better athlete than Nicklaus. If you look at athletic accomplishment in general, there is a legitimate basis to claim that Nicklaus is a better athlete than Woods, assuming that "workout" isn’t a sport, of course. Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

If A=B, then B=A. It’s a wash either way. But A arguably = B is not the same as B arguably = A.

What’s the difference?

Response:

Oh please. That’s like saying other than baseball, Barry Bonds has shown no athletic ability. The notion that because Jack simply ‘played’ football and baseball, he is somehow more athletically gifted is proposterous. Athleticism is not determined solely by the number of sports you participate in. Ahletic ability encompasses speed, flexiblity, strength (upper & lower body), agility, stamina etc… Woods is a better athlete than Nicklaus because when you look at Tiger you can envision him being a good 200 m runner or good at any other sport he applied himself to. When I look at Jack, I see a less athletic golf swing from a less athletic position from a less athletic golfer. Note: Warren Sapp is not the best athlete on his team. The best athletes in football have historically been the receivers, DBs and RBs. Comparing golfers to football players is silly to begin with. Has Sapp ever won athlete of the year?

Response:

what others thing. One poster here said something about "Jack arguably being Tiger’s equal in the mental game", then went on to say that "Tiger beats him on physical conditioning every time" (paraphrased)! My response to that is, Jack isn’t arguably Tiger’s equal in mental game. Tiger is arguably JACK’S equal in mental game. If A=B, then B=A. It’s a wash either way. But A arguably = B is not the same as B arguably = A.

Well, I wrote the original comment so let me tell you what it means when I say it. Here a made-up example: "Pebble Beach is arguably as fine a championship course as Augusta National". What I mean by that, in more words, is: "I think Augusta National is a finer championship course than Pebble Beach but I know there are people who would think it the same or even better. I happen to disagree with those people but it’s a very close call either way". Brent Hutto

Response:

LOL! Trust me, Rob… I’ve seen Tiger up close. You wouldn’t want to tangle with him, either on or off the course. Randy

Response:

You are the master of relevant rebuttals! Must I remind you that athletic ability is evaluated by means of OBSERVATION. Wake up already.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s funny. Someone is better athletically because of the way they look! Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

In the article in Golf Digest? comparing Jack and Tiger they made the point that Jack was much more naturally gifted athletically in that he played football, basketball and tennis at high levels in high school whereas Tiger has shown little aptitude for other sports. B. J. Wilkinson

What is your point? Under this criteria, Muhammad Ali has less athletic ability than Nicklaus, because he was solely focused on boxing from an early age. Commitment to a single sport does not somehow automatically lessen your athleticism.

Response:

I have one comment. You seemed for a moment to have caught the Larry disease of finding an otherwise interesting thread of discussion and lauching off into an off-topic tirade on your own hot-button topic of the day. Moving it to your own thread was a good idea. Thanks. Brent Hutto

What can I say. You’re right. I did misunderstand. From reading your post I gathered that you were talking about Jack in his prime. In the meantime, that doesn’t discount everything else I said. There are many who say Tiger is better than Jack was, and that Tiger will do this and do that. My point is(since the record has been set straight, I am obviously not making this point in response to anything you said) that Jack DID win 18 majors. We don’t have to speculate on what Jack accomplished because Jack DID accomplish it. Until someone else comes along and matches, or surpasses it, it’s all speculation. I apologize for taking your post out of context. Like I said, it gets annoying to hear all the Tiger fans discount what players of the past have done, and talk like Tiger is a shoo-in to break all of Jack’s records.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability. Nicklaus was a good athlete in football and I do beleive baseball at the very least. You want to equate body form to athletic ability, so I guess Warren Sapp is a lousy athlete compared to Tiger Woods? Sounds like the WWE definition of athleticism to me. Oh please. That’s like saying other than baseball, Barry Bonds has shown no athletic ability. The notion that because Jack simply ‘played’ football and baseball, he is somehow more athletically gifted is proposterous. Athleticism is not determined solely by the number of sports you participate in. Ahletic ability encompasses speed, flexiblity, strength (upper & lower body), agility, stamina etc… Woods is a better athlete than Nicklaus because when you look at Tiger you can envision him being a good 200 m runner or good at any other sport he applied himself to. When I look at Jack, I see a less athletic golf swing from a less athletic position from a less athletic golfer.

That’s funny. Someone is better athletically because of the way they look! Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – what others thing. One poster here said something about "Jack arguably being Tiger’s equal in the mental game", then went on to say that "Tiger beats him on physical conditioning every time" (paraphrased)! My response to that is, Jack isn’t arguably Tiger’s equal in mental game. Tiger is arguably JACK’S equal in mental game. If A=B, then B=A. It’s a wash either way. But A arguably = B is not the same as B arguably = A. I think I would like to argue about that???

Careful; Wittgenstein may rise from the dead for an occasion such as this! Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

If A=B, then B=A. It’s a wash either way. But A arguably = B is not the same as B arguably = A. What’s the difference?

The way I’ve always heard "A is arguably B’s equal" implies, that B is the standard to which A at least comes close, but may or may not quite be there. B is at best superior and at worst at the same level. Reverse that for "B is arguably A’s equal". You can’t switch them around and have it mean the same thing.

Response:

I think I would like to argue about that??? -Barry —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

And you must have watched a different Jack than I did in his prime. He was very business like on the course as well. Hell, he was a hated bad guy for taking on The King. He didn’t become the beloved JN until he put on some age and took off some pounds. Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability.

And he needs to do this why? Is he trying out for an NBA team? Nicklaus was a good athlete in football and I do beleive baseball at the very least. You want to equate body form to athletic ability, so I guess Warren Sapp is a lousy athlete compared to Tiger Woods?

Go Bucs! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sounds like the WWE definition of athleticism to me. Physical conditioning to some specific standard is one thing, athletic ability is another. A lot of pro wrestelrs are failed football players, even though according to a musclehead standard of physical conditioning they are in better "shape" that successful football players. Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Go Bucs!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I posted some of what I am about to say in another thread, so I apoligize if this is a repeat for some of you, but I’m curious as to what others thing. One poster here said something about "Jack arguably being Tiger’s equal in the mental game", then went on to say that "Tiger beats him on physical conditioning every time" (paraphrased)! My response to that is, Jack isn’t arguably Tiger’s equal in mental game. Tiger is arguably JACK’S equal in mental game. Then, to go on and say that Tiger beats Jack "every time" physically is just about as big of an assenine statement as I’ve seen on this subject. Every time? Someone on this planet beats Jack EVERY TIME (obviously I’m talking about a young Jack)? My take on this comparison is that Tiger has yet to accomplish what Jack DID accomplish, and it gets old hearing people talk about Tiger as if he’s better than Jack was, or he’s going to do more than what Jack did. It has yet to be done. Tiger may very well accomplish more than Jack did, but it isn’t a done deal. Until that time, the comparison would be more accurately made from the standpoint that "Tiger has the potential to accomplish more than Jack did".

Ty Tryon has the potential to do what Jack Did. As do other pros. Your logic is not very logical. I do like to watch Tiger play, but I don’t think it is fair, just yet, to place Tiger in such high regard over Jack. The problem with sports, and sport fans, is that everyone forgets once you stop winning. On a side note, which has nothing to do with skill level, Jack had/has personality, which is something that Tiger has yet to display.

Whatever. I have to admit that I prefer the modern golf swing over what some of the older players were doing, so for that reason, I probably like to watch Tiger hit the ball more than Jack, but if I take into account the whole picture (meaning personality as well as golf), I would rather watch a young Jack play.

Then you can watch all the old tapes of Jack. Myself, I prefer to see history in the making when Tiger tees it up. There is the feeling that at any moment Tiger will give us a shot that will be replayed over and over because of the sheer brilliance and execution. I like that. It gets old watching Tiger walk around the course like a robot with a scowl on his face, and every now and then giving us the obligitory fist pump, which has become more robot-like than a show of true emotion.

What the fuck do you want him to do? A backflip when he makes birdie? Questions, Comments, Concerns, Flames?

You are obviously a Jack fan, and not much of a Tiger fan, which is fine. But when you just start saying a bunch of stupid shit, somebody’s gonna call you on it. tim

Response:

On a side note, which has nothing to do with skill level, Jack had/has personality, which is something that Tiger has yet to display. I have to admit that I prefer the modern golf swing over what some of the older players were doing, so for that reason, I probably like to watch Tiger hit the ball more than Jack, but if I take into account the whole picture (meaning personality as well as golf), I would rather watch a young Jack play.

Just about everybody back then showed more personality than do today’s golfers. But Jack seemed to show less personality than many of his peers did, and considerably less than Snead did. (I’m not that aware of Snead’s generation as he was the only one left playing when I started watching). Who’s today’s Trevino? Why was Palmer more popular than Nicklaus?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability. So what? I’m strictly talking golf here and he’s shown plenty of athletic ability doing that. What Jack or Irwin did in other sports is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, Sports Illustrated did an interesting series on how early athletes now become specialized. The days of the three-sport lettermen are quickly vanishing. Earl set out to make Tiger a great golfer. Maybe he could have been great at other sports but we’ll never know. But again–who cares? We’re not talking about the concept of athleticism. Jack himself has said that he’s seen Tiger hits shots that amazed him–stuff like 210 yard six irons out of deep rough. That takes physical ability (and some mental toughness to do it when the path goes over water and a tournament is on the line). I’m not saying it not debateable–there’s no real way to measure this. I’m just saying Brent’s position is defendable and not assinine as Jimmy said (although I think he misunderstood what Bent was actually saying).

What you say is very true, but there is no valid reason for accepting that physically Woods is superior to Nicklaus at similar points in their development. "Fat Jack" wasn’t necessarily physically unfit or atheltically incompetent Jack, any moreso than Warren Sapp is physically unfit or athletically incompetent. In fact, the record shows that Nicklaus was very athletic, much moreso than the record shows Woods to be athletic. Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge…I will only initiate golf related threads) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~frostback2002)

Response:

Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability.

So what? I’m strictly talking golf here and he’s shown plenty of athletic ability doing that. What Jack or Irwin did in other sports is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, Sports Illustrated did an interesting series on how early athletes now become specialized. The days of the three-sport lettermen are quickly vanishing. Earl set out to make Tiger a great golfer. Maybe he could have been great at other sports but we’ll never know. But again–who cares? We’re not talking about the concept of athleticism. Jack himself has said that he’s seen Tiger hits shots that amazed him–stuff like 210 yard six irons out of deep rough. That takes physical ability (and some mental toughness to do it when the path goes over water and a tournament is on the line). I’m not saying it not debateable–there’s no real way to measure this. I’m just saying Brent’s position is defendable and not assinine as Jimmy said (although I think he misunderstood what Bent was actually saying). Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Other than golf, Woods has shown no athletic ability. So what? I’m strictly talking golf here and he’s shown plenty of athletic ability doing that. What Jack or Irwin did in other sports is irrelevant. As someone else mentioned, Sports Illustrated did an interesting series on how early athletes now become specialized. The days of the three-sport lettermen are quickly vanishing. Earl set out to make Tiger a great golfer. Maybe he could have been great at other sports but we’ll never know. But again–who cares? We’re not talking about the concept of athleticism. Jack himself has said that he’s seen Tiger hits shots that amazed him–stuff like 210 yard six irons out of deep rough. That takes physical ability (and some mental toughness to do it when the path goes over water and a tournament is on the line). I’m not saying it not debateable–there’s no real way to measure this. I’m just saying Brent’s position is defendable and not assinine as Jimmy said (although I think he misunderstood what Bent was actually saying). What you say is very true, but there is no valid reason for accepting that physically Woods is superior to Nicklaus at similar points in their development. "Fat Jack" wasn’t necessarily physically unfit or atheltically incompetent Jack, any moreso than Warren Sapp is physically unfit or athletically incompetent. In fact, the record shows that Nicklaus was very athletic, much moreso than the record shows Woods to be athletic.

I looked and looked on the web, but couldn’t find any cites to back it up, but I’m pretty sure Tiger was a pretty salty all-around athlete. This is based on memory, but I thought I heard where Tiger ran a 50 second 400 meters in Junior High. I do know that Earl tried to get him to do other sports, but Tiger refused because it cut into his golfing too much. Earl (take it for what it’s worth) thought Tiger was a great baseball player, too. But as near as I can tell, Tiger had given up all other sports in his early teens. Earl himself was a scholarship baseball player at Kansas State. You are definitely correct about Jack. He was an excellent all-around athlete in high school and earlier. -Barry —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

But A arguably = B is not the same as B arguably = A. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Then, to go on and say that Tiger beats Jack "every time" physically is just about as big of an assenine statement as I’ve seen on this subject. Every time? Someone on this planet beats Jack EVERY TIME He didn’t say he wins a match or tourney every time, he said if you could somehow limit the performance to pure physical ability (which you can’t), then Tiger would rate higher than Jack. I don’t think that’s assinine at all–hell, Jack has said something similar himself!! And you must have watched a different Jack than I did in his prime. He was very business like on the course as well. Hell, he was a hated bad guy for taking on The King. He didn’t become the beloved JN until he put on some age and took off some pounds. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

If A=B, then B=A. It’s a wash either way. Then, to go on and say that Tiger beats Jack "every time" physically is just about as big of an assenine statement as I’ve seen on this subject. Every time? Someone on this planet beats Jack EVERY TIME

He didn’t say he wins a match or tourney every time, he said if you could somehow limit the performance to pure physical ability (which you can’t), then Tiger would rate higher than Jack. I don’t think that’s assinine at all–hell, Jack has said something similar himself!! And you must have watched a different Jack than I did in his prime. He was very business like on the course as well. Hell, he was a hated bad guy for taking on The King. He didn’t become the beloved JN until he put on some age and took off some pounds. Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

I posted some of what I am about to say in another thread, so I apoligize if this is a repeat for some of you, but I’m curious as to what others thing. One poster here said something about "Jack arguably being Tiger’s equal in the mental game", then went on to say that "Tiger beats him on physical conditioning every time" (paraphrased)! My response to that is, Jack isn’t arguably Tiger’s equal in mental game. Tiger is arguably JACK’S equal in mental game. Then, to go on and say that Tiger beats Jack "every time" physically is just about as big of an assenine statement as I’ve seen on this subject. Every time? Someone on this planet beats Jack EVERY TIME (obviously I’m talking about a young Jack)? My take on this comparison is that Tiger has yet to accomplish what Jack DID accomplish, and it gets old hearing people talk about Tiger as if he’s better than Jack was, or he’s going to do more than what Jack did. It has yet to be done. Tiger may very well accomplish more than Jack did, but it isn’t a done deal. Until that time, the comparison would be more accurately made from the standpoint that "Tiger has the potential to accomplish more than Jack did". I do like to watch Tiger play, but I don’t think it is fair, just yet, to place Tiger in such high regard over Jack. The problem with sports, and sport fans, is that everyone forgets once you stop winning. On a side note, which has nothing to do with skill level, Jack had/has personality, which is something that Tiger has yet to display. I have to admit that I prefer the modern golf swing over what some of the older players were doing, so for that reason, I probably like to watch Tiger hit the ball more than Jack, but if I take into account the whole picture (meaning personality as well as golf), I would rather watch a young Jack play. It gets old watching Tiger walk around the course like a robot with a scowl on his face, and every now and then giving us the obligitory fist pump, which has become more robot-like than a show of true emotion. Questions, Comments, Concerns, Flames?

Response:

Jimmy, you really should start reading things before you respond. Apparently, my original post was not clear in that I was talking about the bad-hip, bad-back 60+ year old Jack Nicklaus of 2003. Not the young stud of the late 1960’s. That was clarified just a bit further in the same thread where posted your other "response". On a side note, which has nothing to do with skill level, Jack had/has personality, which is something that Tiger has yet to display. I have to admit that I prefer the modern golf swing over what some of the older players were doing, so for that reason, I probably like to watch Tiger hit the ball more than Jack, but if I take into account the whole picture (meaning personality as well as golf), I would rather watch a young Jack play. It gets old watching Tiger walk around the course like a robot with a scowl on his face, and every now and then giving us the obligitory fist pump, which has become more robot-like than a show of true emotion.

I thought when Jack first hit the scene everyone talked about that fat kid who walked around with no expression on his face, unlike the dashing Arnold Palmer. You know what? I love watching Arnie play, even now that his game’s shot. I love watching Jack play. I love watching Tiger play. Each of them has a personality but they are not clones of each other. Given my choice, I might just pick the three of them to round out my dream foursome and accompany me on the great courses of the world. Questions, Comments, Concerns, Flames?

Golfers Wiki

A Golfers Paradise: Golf Bags, Golf Courses, Golf Clubs, and More – Everything a Golfer Needs!

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply